If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: In the genes?

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

I mean... okay? But in this article you are essentially agreeing with Feminazi's that he is somehow 'degrading' women by grinding up against them when they're already wearing thong bikini's and pasties (assumption).

I think that was Silly's way of saying you can take the nigger out of the hood, but you can't take the hood out of the nigger. Eg; Dude's acting trashy even though he's a big star with a major role in one of the hottest Hollywood properties.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: In the genes?

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

I mean... okay? But in this article you are essentially agreeing with Feminazi's that he is somehow 'degrading' women by grinding up against them when they're already wearing thong bikini's and pasties (assumption).

Yeah it was the hood in the nigger reference. Here is is British raised and he's engaging in Caribbean hood nigger activities. The article says something about objections to his behavior being "racially insensitive" (because the author knows this is typical nigger behavior) and about Boyega whatevers Nigerian parents being ok with these kind of "traditions". My point is that this kind of "tradition" is indicative of African/black culture and that even the "non savage" blacks are still innately drawn to it. In my opinion most likely because they have a genetically induced affinity for it. If you Google some "whining" videos you will see they have you g black kids as young as 6 or 7 years old doinghe exact same kind of dancing WHILE being cheered on by adults.

"Nah man, a Paladin has to play fair and by the rules. Do you really see Silly not attacking a weakened opponent? Or rather, not exploiting a weakness to take an enemy down? He'd totally do that. It's the law of the jungle with Silly, even if he does have faith. I think he's principled, just not merciful." - Zavon

Re: In the genes?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

"I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

Re: In the genes?

So, this guy, "Race Realist" showed up in a video I was watching on youtube, and I'm like, "I've remember that guy." Jared Taylor was doing an interview with Andy Warski of Internet Bloodsports (basically, take a bunch of people that disagree, put them on a livestream, and let them talk). He tried to get ANY leftists to come on and talk to Jared Taylor but they wouldn't. This guy comes on, asks stupid questions like "How is IQ relevant to anything?". After Taylor answered his first few questions Andy Warski kicked him off the show because he wasn't adding anything of value to the conversation.

Internet Bloodsports is the most entertaining show on the internet right now. It's too bad people are too cowardly to debate alt-right guests (when he has them).

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: In the genes?

Originally Posted by Marou

Jared Taylor

Yawn.

You like this guy because he exists in that same crawlspace where you do, between people on the far left denying science and the actual science no one listens to. There's a genetic component to IQ, IQ is meaningful and no one wants to hear it so he uses that shitty study -which literally cannot be true due to the differences in black IQ between generations within the same families- to pretend this means we're all superior to most blacks by comparison to third world shit holes. Anyone who argues with that, including me, you use hyperbole to force their argument up into the category of leftists denying reality.

It was an interesting thing to explore when you first showed it all to me, but it's pretty boring now that I've got the size of it and you ran away from the discussion a few times to post anti-black memes at a guy who grew up outside Baltimore.

I like that he's calm and reasonable so far as I've seen him, but he's still forcing race to the top of the issue pile where it doesn't belong and he's still taking ownership of "white" values that should be "American" or "Human".

EDIT--
And then I see this convenient article... Poor kid isn't even going near genetics or putting down other people, he's just stating the obvious. There are less candidates in the same bracket, thus less representation.

Re: In the genes?

Originally Posted by VKhaun

Yawn.

You like this guy because he exists in that same crawlspace where you do, between people on the far left denying science and the actual science no one listens to. There's a genetic component to IQ, IQ is meaningful and no one wants to hear it so he uses that shitty study -which literally cannot be true due to the differences in black IQ between generations within the same families- to pretend this means we're all superior to most blacks by comparison to third world shit holes. Anyone who argues with that, including me, you use hyperbole to force their argument up into the category of leftists denying reality.

It was an interesting thing to explore when you first showed it all to me, but it's pretty boring now that I've got the size of it and you ran away from the discussion a few times to post anti-black memes at a guy who grew up outside Baltimore.

I like that he's calm and reasonable so far as I've seen him, but he's still forcing race to the top of the issue pile where it doesn't belong and he's still taking ownership of "white" values that should be "American" or "Human".

I only brought this up because:

Internet Bloodsports is fun, check out the pickup artist vs the wamenz twitch streamer if you want to avoid ideology you don't like

The guy that called in posted here previously and I was following up on old threads

I gave up trying to make rational arguments to you on this topic a long time ago, because it was frustrating. You should go on something like Internet Bloodsports and argue against the alt-right since at least in your own mind you can do what various professors of biology and stuff can't and make race realists "run away" from literal mountains of evidence that aren't even contested.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: In the genes?

I can not decide whether you are a troll or seriously retarded. You love to bring up that people ran away. No one ran away from you, all your questions were answered, you just didn't like any of them.

If you can simply not understand the reason as to why we think this is important, ok but I yawn at you at this crap you keep pulling. Its ridiculous dude.

You are acting like you are standing from a higher ground because you ignore race issues, thus making you obviously a better person but you are just part of the problem in our eyes. So we can say we agree to disagree but you are just coming across douchey with your attitude about it because you can't see that everything you are trying to apply to us, can be in turn, be applied to you.

Come on man, don't pull this crap.

In this world is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering from above? Perhaps men have no control even over their own will.

You're right, we are mortal and fragile. But even if we are tortured or wounded, we'll fight to survive. You should feel the pain we feel and understand. I am the messenger that will deliver you to that pain and understanding.

Re: In the genes?

I can not decide whether you are a troll or seriously retarded. You love to bring up that people ran away. No one ran away from you, all your questions were answered, you just didn't like any of them.

If you can simply not understand the reason as to why we think this is important, ok but I yawn at you at this crap you keep pulling. Its ridiculous dude.

You are acting like you are standing from a higher ground because you ignore race issues, thus making you obviously a better person but you are just part of the problem in our eyes. So we can say we agree to disagree but you are just coming across douchey with your attitude about it because you can't see that everything you are trying to apply to us, can be in turn, be applied to you.

Come on man, don't pull this crap.

Well, yeah, it's fundamentally more honest to just be like the Race Realist dude and try to argue that intelligence doesn't matter to life outcomes or something. Obviously tons of evidence contradicts that, but tons of evidence contradicts plenty of things that people believe in for moral reasons.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: In the genes?

I can not decide whether you are a troll or seriously retarded. You love to bring up that people ran away. No one ran away from you, all your questions were answered, you just didn't like any of them.

If you can simply not understand the reason as to why we think this is important, ok but I yawn at you at this crap you keep pulling. Its ridiculous dude.

You are acting like you are standing from a higher ground because you ignore race issues, thus making you obviously a better person but you are just part of the problem in our eyes. So we can say we agree to disagree but you are just coming across douchey with your attitude about it because you can't see that everything you are trying to apply to us, can be in turn, be applied to you.

Come on man, don't pull this crap.

Oh, I must have missed it.

Please remind me why your entire argument hinges on heritability numbers from one uniquely high study that was done badly and it's own authors split and cited opposite conclusions?

Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

Re: In the genes?

Please remind me why your entire argument hinges on heritability numbers from one uniquely high study that was done badly and it's own authors split and cited opposite conclusions?

It doesn't, there are a gazillion ways you can show blacks are less intelligent than whites, and a gazillion studies. If you want to say it's all mah nutrition it doesn't change anything since the whole world currently isn't getting "SmartNig(tm) supplements".

Anyways, believe what you want to man. Seriously. I just found it interesting that guy called into a show I was watching since I remembered him posting here; I also found it interesting than no one would debate Taylor.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: In the genes?

Originally Posted by Marou

It doesn't, there are a gazillion ways you can show blacks are less intelligent than whites, and a gazillion studies. If you want to say it's all mah nutrition it doesn't change anything since the whole world currently isn't getting "SmartNig(tm) supplements".

Anyways, believe what you want to man. Seriously. I just found it interesting that guy called into a show, and I also found it interesting than no one would debate Taylor.

And we have done nothing but that and in return have been told, don't run away from my question! No one has ever run away from you VK. You are just so incredibly frustrating to debate with, that at some point you gotta shrug and go meh, he is not getting it/refusing to listen.

In this world is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering from above? Perhaps men have no control even over their own will.

You're right, we are mortal and fragile. But even if we are tortured or wounded, we'll fight to survive. You should feel the pain we feel and understand. I am the messenger that will deliver you to that pain and understanding.

Re: In the genes?

Originally Posted by Marou

It doesn't, there are a gazillion ways you can show blacks are less intelligent than whites, and a gazillion studies.

Less intelligent today does not equal your assertion that people with certain color skin are doomed to always be less intelligent and therefore society should treat them differently based on skin color. That is entirely tied to one, shitty, debunked study not supported by it's own authors.

Originally Posted by Marou

If you want to say it's all mah nutrition it doesn't change anything since the whole world currently isn't getting "SmartNig(tm) supplements".

...then you go to making my argument into hyperbole because you can't argue it...

Originally Posted by Marou

Anyways, believe what you want to man. Seriously. I just found it interesting...

...and then you run away.

Thanks for at least being concise this time.

Last edited by VKhaun; 02-12-2018 at 05:01 PM.

Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

Re: In the genes?

This article cropped up on my facebook feed the other day and I had a conversation with my wife about it.

The thing that really annoys me about the topic of Race and IQ differences, at the core I believe, is insinuation that other factors are the cause for differences.

There are plenty of black people that are way smarter than I am, historically and right now (e.g. Thomas Sowell). That doesn't make me upset. I have never had an issue with one of my professors being Hispanic (or even thought about it for that matter). I believe that the people that have an issue with shit like that are a fringe minority and almost certainly low IQ (ironically).

What boils my goat though, is when someone looks at a school say like Harvard, and says, "There aren't enough black people there". Race and IQ differences become extremely important because it offers up a reasonable explanation for admittance practices. I don't for a second believe that "institutional racisims" (a nebulous concept in and of itself) is a reasonable explanation for racial disparity. Lowering standards to accommodate someone because of their skin color sickens me to the core. It's an insult to the blacks that actually belong at places like Harvard (rare though they may be).

Why is it only racial IQ differences that seem controversial? Do we need to force the NFL to take more slower white Running backs or Hispanic ones? Is no one bothered by the fact that the NFL and NBA are dominated by physically gifted black men (I sure as shit don't care)?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

"I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

Re: In the genes?

This article cropped up on my facebook feed the other day and I had a conversation with my wife about it.

The thing that really annoys me about the topic of Race and IQ differences, at the core I believe, is insinuation that other factors are the cause for differences.

There are plenty of black people that are way smarter than I am, historically and right now (e.g. Thomas Sowell). That doesn't make me upset. I have never had an issue with one of my professors being Hispanic (or even thought about it for that matter). I believe that the people that have an issue with shit like that are a fringe minority and almost certainly low IQ (ironically).

What boils my goat though, is when someone looks at a school say like Harvard, and says, "There aren't enough black people there". Race and IQ differences become extremely important because it offers up a reasonable explanation for admittance practices. I don't for a second believe that "institutional racisims" (a nebulous concept in and of itself) is a reasonable explanation for racial disparity. Lowering standards to accommodate someone because of their skin color sickens me to the core. It's an insult to the blacks that actually belong at places like Harvard (rare though they may be).

Why is it only racial IQ differences that seem controversial? Do we need to force the NFL to take more slower white Running backs or Hispanic ones? Is no one bothered by the fact that the NFL and NBA are dominated by physically gifted black men (I sure as shit don't care)?

I've come to believe there is a certain deeply ingrained form of radical egalitarianism at the core of everything I disagree with. Marxists, vegans, liberals. They project their thinking patterns and belief structures onto everyone (and in the case of vegans, even animals). They can't abstract their feelings from their thinking well enough to accept information that isn't fair, or worse, seems cruel. This isn't an absolute quality, it's a sliding scale, and perhaps some people possess it moreso than others. Tolerance of perceived "unfairness" is extraordinarily low, and practicality must take a back seat to "fair" even if it means death, suffering, or worse.

I've seen this manifest in multiple categories of people including in some cases groups arguing diametrically opposed courses of action with one another.

Social Justice Warriors versus YouTube skeptics for example. They both agree on a basic level on most "core" values and what is morally important, "people have a right", "their rights", "my rights", "free will". They disagree on the most practical way to honor those values, or argue that X *right* overrides *Y* right. They never argue to what extent humans or other animals possess free will or abstract thinking. Further, they can't or won't acknowledge that these moral abstractions can not be meaningfully compared across different types of animals or peoples within different stratification levels of intelligence. They "project" for lack of a better term, their way of thinking onto everything.

The MAGA hat Trump fan, going to "Red Pill" the blacks into voting republican, because "Democrats are the real racists *squeak*". The social justice warrior or feminist that is going to "wake up" the populace to what they perceive to be racism and sexism. The hipster Marxist who is going to "tear down the bourgeois" and bring about a "classless society".

The thing all of these people seem to have in common is that their morality is centered on "Fair". All of their meaningful interactions with other humans are limited to people within their socioeconomic bubble and way of thinking. It's easy to see the world this way, I guess, if it matches with all of your own "anecdotal" experience. Eventually I believe these bubbles will dissolve for many, and abandoning the practical in the name of the "fair" will be demonstrated to be folly. Principles are fine as an aspiration, but they should be put aside when they are impractical or suicidal.

Morality that centers on doing what is best for yourself, your family, and your people is far more useful and practical to live by. This is pure common sense to everyone except middle/upper class whites and jews in first world countries.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: In the genes?

It makes one think that people like this feel that other people should be able to have what they have, do what they do. Achieve what they have achieved. You see tongue clicks living in a mud hut and think, if we just gave them all the things we have, they could be like this. Which is where the thinking is wrong, because it is not true. It is observably not true but the real point is, why do we have to give to to them? Because its not fair that we can live like this and they are not?

Why is it up to us to do anything at all? Why must we make them live to our standards?

It is the flawed thinking that I see a lot of vegans using for why eating meat is cruel. Because what about the chicken feels! Projecting your own level of thinking, feelings and standards onto something else. What if the chicken is happy? Not possible, because humans couldn't possibly be happy in that situation, so nothing else can either. It is ridiculous.

Last edited by Aeinna; 02-15-2018 at 02:23 PM.

In this world is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering from above? Perhaps men have no control even over their own will.

You're right, we are mortal and fragile. But even if we are tortured or wounded, we'll fight to survive. You should feel the pain we feel and understand. I am the messenger that will deliver you to that pain and understanding.

Re: In the genes?

Originally Posted by Aeinna

It makes one think that people like this feel that other people should be able to have what they have, do what they do. Achieve what they have achieved. You see tongue clicks living in a mud hut and think, if we just gave them all the things we have, they could be like this. Which is where the thinking is wrong, because it is not true. It is observably not true but the real point is, why do we have to give to to them? Because its not fair that we can live like this and they are not?

Why is it up to us to do anything at all? Why must we make them live to our standards?

It is the flawed thinking that I see a lot of vegans using for why eating meat is cruel. Because what about the chicken feels! Projecting your own level of thinking, feelings and standards onto something else. What if the chicken is happy? Not possible, because humans couldn't possible be happy in that situation, so nothing else can either. It is ridiculous.

Because it's their "moral obligation" to make everything fair, even if it only leads to immense suffering for everyone. Thanks to colorblind multiculturalism instead of wandering the savanna and having children the sub Saharan can get thrown into a western prison for raping a woman. Thanks to marxism instead of having a "classless" Utopian society, the lazy will be exterminated while a government centered oligarchy rules over everyone with an iron fist. An overzealous pursuit of "Fair" that ignores human nature fucks things up for everyone, more often than not.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: In the genes?

Originally Posted by Marou

I've come to believe there is a certain deeply ingrained form of radical egalitarianism at the core of everything I disagree with. Marxists, vegans, liberals. They project their thinking patterns and belief structures onto everyone (and in the case of vegans, even animals). They can't abstract their feelings from their thinking well enough to accept information that isn't fair, or worse, seems cruel. This isn't an absolute quality, it's a sliding scale, and perhaps some people possess it moreso than others. Tolerance of perceived "unfairness" is extraordinarily low, and practicality must take a back seat to "fair" even if it means death, suffering, or worse.

I've seen this manifest in multiple categories of people including in some cases groups arguing diametrically opposed courses of action with one another.

Social Justice Warriors versus YouTube skeptics for example. They both agree on a basic level on most "core" values and what is morally important, "people have a right", "their rights", "my rights", "free will". They disagree on the most practical way to honor those values, or argue that X *right* overrides *Y* right. They never argue to what extent humans or other animals possess free will or abstract thinking. Further, they can't or won't acknowledge that these moral abstractions can not be meaningfully compared across different types of animals or peoples within different stratification levels of intelligence. They "project" for lack of a better term, their way of thinking onto everything.

The MAGA hat Trump fan, going to "Red Pill" the blacks into voting republican, because "Democrats are the real racists *squeak*". The social justice warrior or feminist that is going to "wake up" the populace to what they perceive to be racism and sexism. The hipster Marxist who is going to "tear down the bourgeois" and bring about a "classless society".

The thing all of these people seem to have in common is that their morality is centered on "Fair". All of their meaningful interactions with other humans are limited to people within their socioeconomic bubble and way of thinking. It's easy to see the world this way, I guess, if it matches with all of your own "anecdotal" experience. Eventually I believe these bubbles will dissolve for many, and abandoning the practical in the name of the "fair" will be demonstrated to be folly. Principles are fine as an aspiration, but they should be put aside when they are impractical or suicidal.

Morality that centers on doing what is best for yourself, your family, and your people is far more useful and practical to live by. This is pure common sense to everyone except middle/upper class whites and jews in first world countries.

Your response made me think of a dude I saw whining on Facebook recently. He was complaining that he is torn about sharing his outrage at something (virtue signaling) but also apathetic because he knows it won't convince anyone otherwise.

We can just about all agree that shooting kids is bad. Does making guns illegal stop kids from getting shot (Spoiler alert: no)? Does taking candy bars away from fat people stop them from being fat? Has being Outraged EVER in the history of humanity ever helped ANYTHING??

The argument with Valec the other day falls along the same lines. A.) Trump is abusing his position as president to stay at his own hotels. B.) Therefore he is a crook, and everything he does is a crooked.

It's decided for him, the lines are drawn, everything forthwith is fruit of the poisoned tree. Despite the inanity of that argument, the sad part is we actually have common ground. I don't like Trump as a person. His hair looks stupid, he definitely banged that porn star while his wife was at home with a new baby, and he is almost certainly a narcissist. If I had to be in a room with him and Obama I'd almost certainly rather talk to Obummer. I've never once regretted voting for Trump though (like I do Obama), and the fucker makes me happier every day he's in office.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

"I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon